In Time (2011)

If Andrew Niccol’s In Time proves anything, it’s that it is indeed possible for a film to have a reasonably clever premise yet still be maddeningly idiotic. Potentially a resonant tale about a world where the “wealth” isn’t equally distributed—a sci-fi film for the Occupy Wall Street crowd—In Time turns into an insufferable non-thriller that utterly wastes all its not-inconsiderable resources. There is no wit to be found, no humor to be found, no joy to be found. Niccol is clearly a filmmaker with ideas, and he has previously been successful at depicting them onscreen, but this film is just an utter failure at every level that doesn’t exploit its premise to even a half-hearted extent. Coming up with a neat idea is just half the battle. It’s a whole other challenge to turn it into something worthwhile.

In Time takes place in a world where everyone stops aging at 25, and all currency is replaced with time; specifically, the amount of time remaining in someone’s life. Will Salas (a wasted, miscast Justin Timberlake) lives in the ghetto of Dayton (not Ohio), where he lives day-to-day along with others who are less-than-fortunate. Most only have hours left on the clock, and everything they do is focused on how they will get more time on Earth. This all changes when Will encounters the wealthy Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), who gives Will all his remaining time so he may finally rest in glorious peace. However, what seems like an act of charity is actually a crime to some, namely the Timekeepers, led by Cillian Murphy. The elites of this land refuse to let time fall into the “wrong hands,” and they see Will’s possession of Hamilton’s time as a danger to the entire system. Yet Will thinks that the time should be equally distributed to all, and on his Robin Hood-esque crusade he brings Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), daughter of the ultra-rich Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), along for the ride.

A perfectly reasonable question to ask at this point would be: “how?” How did this world come to be? When did humanity stop aging at 25? Did this happen organically? In this film, everyone has a green readout on their arms that displays how much time they have left. Where did this come from? Did we suddenly just have green numbers appearing on our arms for no reason? Last I checked, the human body didn’t work that way. In Time doesn’t answer any of these questions, and it expects the audience to simply accept every gaping leap in logic. In fact, the opening narration all but tells us that we shouldn’t worry about all that because this is the world that’s in front of us, so screw it. If nothing about your premise makes sense, the last thing you want to do is alert the audience’s attention to that fact.

Of course, I’m willing to buy just about anything if it’s presented in a reasonably entertaining fashion. In Time is not. It simply goes through a series of obvious chase and action sequences that are never exciting because the characters are about as drawn-out as that stick figure I was really proud of in fourth grade. (Even worse, everyone in this movie always speaks in that really intense whisper that you hear in movies like this but never in real life. Ever.) The characters act precisely as movie characters should, and the inevitable romance between Timberlake and Seyfried seems to occur simply because they both realized they were the leads in a Hollywood movie. The performances are wooden, but it’s hard to leave much of an impression if everything is just as wooden on paper. Take Timberlake, for instance. He has spent the past couple years becoming one of the most charming performers in the business, and he works best when he’s given a funny, magnetic role to play. Will Salas is not that role. Timberlake is a talented leading man, but he is not, not a stone-faced action star. At one point in this film, he puts a gun to another character’s head and threatens to blow their brains out, but Timberlake just seems incapable of portraying a man who could actually pull the trigger. His characters should be the ones just hanging out at the bar, not starting the fights.

In Time’s premise is no sillier than, say, that of Inception. The concept of a bunch of dudes in suits climbing into someone’s dreams is absolutely ridiculous, but Christopher Nolan was able to execute it in exciting and thought-provoking fashion. In Time has quite a bit to say about the economy and human nature, but it is done with all subtlety of a dozen shrieking cats. Worse yet, it is packaged within a self-serious slog with nary an interesting or well-developed character to be found, and the action sequences have even less to add. Everyone involved is talented, and will continue to do good work in the future. It’s incredibly easy to see how In Time could have been an attractive project, but that doesn’t change the fact that In Time is a horribly-executed miscalculation with one unique idea, but nothing else remotely original to offer.

Grade: D-